Election 2012: Conservatards vs Librodouches

Elect!   100 members have voted

  1. 1. Elect!

    • Obama
      44
    • Romney
      13
    • Others
      26
    • Huy is a Faggot
      45

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Caffeine Freak said:

Whatever. After 12 years of increasing national debt, what's 4 more?

There's nothing in Mitt Romneys plans that suggest that he would help in this regard in any shape or form. He would go back to deregulation and do all those retarded things that created this whole mess from the beginning. The republicans hasn't shown any inclination towards learning frtom their past mistakes. And blaming the current administration for a growing debth is like blaming the cleaning lady for the mess the people that came before her made.

Share this post


Link to post

Caffeine Freak didn't say:
Whatever. After 4 years of decreasing national deficit, what's 4 more?

Fixed that for you.
Did anyone really think Romney's economic plan was going to pay off the debt? Sure, there's a trillion dollars hiding in tax loopholes. I've got a bridge to sell you.

Not that Johnson's ideas (cut taxes and shrink government at all costs) are any better.

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

There's nothing in Mitt Romneys plans that suggest that he would help in this regard in any shape or form.

What, you mean reducing federal income (through tax cuts to the benefits of the wealthy elite and large corporations) while at the same time increasing military spending would somehow not reduce deficits? But... It's simple mathematics: less income + more spending = less deficits. Any Republican could tell you that.

If by some voodoo magic it would actually somehow increase deficit, there's a simple plan B, which is abolishing any and all form of welfare state. But what's the change this would actually be needed?

Share this post


Link to post

Some lady on Facebook who will de-friend me very soon
Good bye America. Looking forward to Jesus coming back. What a home coming that will be. Praise the Lord. His ways are far above our ways. His purpose and will has been declared. Never thought I would be ashamed to be an American, but I can't relate to this new American people who feel people owe them something and use the government to get their handouts. My God shall supply all my needs.

My reply: "Obama being president is all part of God's plan. It's not for you to understand."

Share this post


Link to post

4 more years of destruction, RIP degenerate USA. Enjoy your increasing debt, pointless wars, assassination of American citizens and abolition of your rights.

Share this post


Link to post

4 more years of okay. At least it's better than looking forward to 4 years of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

There's nothing in Mitt Romneys plans that suggest that he would help in this regard in any shape or form. He would go back to deregulation and do all those retarded things that created this whole mess from the beginning. The republicans hasn't shown any inclination towards learning frtom their past mistakes. And blaming the current administration for a growing debth is like blaming the cleaning lady for the mess the people that came before her made.


I think I indicated when I said "12 years of increasing national debt" that I blame Bush for our situation as well. How does the current administration escape responsibility for the increase in national debt?

Bucket said:

Fixed that for you.


I can understand why you did that. Our national defecit is more pleasant to think about than the (roughly) six trillion we've added to our national debt since Obama took office.

Share this post


Link to post

DooMAD said:
The same could be said for larger parties, though.

What I'm saying is that regardless of what they say or promise, you can measure what politicians and parties who have run in the "big leagues" have done and do in a concrete manner. What happens when small parties have to govern? They will adapt or fall unless they rise to power with changes in society that accompany and drive their new proposals, since up to then they have played minor administration roles or have been opposition critics.

It's not democracy anymore if the elected representative isn't really elected and doesn't really represent.

Conservatives and reactionaries try to convince others that since democracy has many issues and flaws, there is no democracy. Be it out of fear, conviction or confusion, that idea erodes democratic activity by spreading nihilistic distrust. Democracy requires involvement with demands that also form a base from which governments can draw power. If they don't have that dual pressure and support, they'll turn to select elites to sustain their power. In a sense, leaders that at least have some links to popular needs and interests must be wooed. Paranoia against the State and government is incompatible with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Snakes said:

I don't know, guys. According to Doomworld, Huy is a Faggot.

Yeah, but I actually won the election. You casted your vote for me; you all were tricked with smokes and mirror.

One world government lurking in the shadow.

Share this post


Link to post

Me three. I've always sided with the Green Party, it seems. They're like Libertarian Socialists, but mostly grounded in reality.

They should totally do a quiz like that, except it tells you which of history's most evil dictators you agree with. "Wow, turns out I'm 92% Pol Pot!"

Share this post


Link to post

Both Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were legitimately raped by their constituents. Clearly that’s something God intended to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
CODOR said:

Both Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were legitimately raped by their constituents. Clearly that’s something God intended to happen.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

What I'm saying is that regardless of what they say or promise, you can measure what politicians and parties who have run in the "big leagues" have done and do in a concrete manner. What happens when small parties have to govern? They will adapt or fall unless they rise to power with changes in society that accompany and drive their new proposals, since up to then they have played minor administration roles or have been opposition critics.

Not necessarily. Say a new party took power and managed to push through some new laws. Say those new laws were of benefit to society. Where is the prerequisite for there to be any changes in society to support that change in law? The only changes that would actually be required for that to happen is less influence from big business and private donors, fair and equal media coverage and some electoral reforms to prevent it from skewing the vote and intentionally keeping smaller parties out. The only change society needs to make is to wake up and draw attention to this issue.

myk said:

Conservatives and reactionaries try to convince others that since democracy has many issues and flaws, there is no democracy. Be it out of fear, conviction or confusion, that idea erodes democratic activity by spreading nihilistic distrust. Democracy requires involvement with demands that also form a base from which governments can draw power. If they don't have that dual pressure and support, they'll turn to select elites to sustain their power. In a sense, leaders that at least have some links to popular needs and interests must be wooed. Paranoia against the State and government is incompatible with that.

So people should trust their governments implicitly, regardless of how corrupt they might be? Hell no. Democracy doesn't fail just because people are disillusioned with it and think it needs a kick up the backside. If I were an American, I'd have still turned up and voted for one of the third parties who haven't got a snowball's chance in hell because the system is broken.

Even though I am convinced that neither of the "main" candidates will prevent an armed conflict with Iran. Even though I'm convinced neither will tighten up regulations in the financial sector to prevent worldwide acts of fraud. Even though neither will ever truly separate church from state. Even though I think "select elites" as you describe them already sustain their power because corruption is the only way to have a successful political party. Even though the system is a self-perpetuating circle-jerk. Even with all that distrust, I'd have still voted. Much as I'd hope anyone who sees the situation as I do would still vote. (*)

I can raise the issues about what I perceive as corruption and have a debate about it. But it doesn't mean I'd want to withdraw altogether from that system. After all, if you take the ball and go home in protest, no one's going to care what you think.


//EDIT:
(*) Unless I was unfortunate enough to live in Oklahoma, where apparently there wasn't a third party candidate available to choose. WTF is that about?

Share this post


Link to post
CODOR said:

Both Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were legitimately raped by their constituents. Clearly that’s something God intended to happen.

Apparently, the electoral body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Share this post


Link to post

DooMAD said:
The only change society needs to make is to wake up and draw attention to this issue.

See my reply to Mr. Freeze here. "Waking up" is hardly trivial and is more like the aim of the whole struggle than a simple step.

So people should trust their governments implicitly, regardless of how corrupt they might be?

No and that is addressed in my post with "leaders that at least have some links to popular needs and interests". That is definitely a condition. My point isn't that you're obligated to trust, but that trust is like a political force or power when people are mobilized and willing to give at the same time that they uphold their social demands. I'm guessing Obama won because of this, as many activists noticed that if he were replaced by Romney, the bulk of the fruits of their activism would be swept away too, regardless of the flaws of his administration. It was their own political achievements that were at stake, which Obama helped channel somewhat, even if in a limited and flawed way. What I question mainly is a passive society that expects public servants instead of making leaders.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now